[ryanjshaw]

I also wonder why the tax payers who care can’t contribute directly to a fund, and keep government out of entirely.

[jmye]

Because we use taxes as a process to crowdsource funding more effectively. That's literally the entire basis for it. Might as well ask why "only the taxpayers who care about a new highway can raise funds to buy it" and then we're back in some weird, system of no central government because someone can always claim "why not just like, let people donate money" because it's a simplistic cliche that appeals deeply to people who aren't quite clever enough to work out just how much they've benefitted from the system as it's been constructed.

[buzzert]

> we use taxes as a process to crowdsource funding more effectively

Effectively? It doesn't seem to me like most western governments allocate this funding "effectively" at all. How do we increase the accountability?

[ryanjshaw]

> simplistic cliche that appeals deeply to people who aren't quite clever enough

Is this passive aggressive insult really necessary?

> Because we use taxes as a process to crowdsource funding more effectively

I’m sure you will agree that not everything that everybody wants can get funded. The debate here is how to draw the line.

I think critical shared physical infrastructure occupying a limited valuable resource is nothing like art, so I’m struggling to follow your argument.

[komali2]

Then it would be a popularity contest and depend on the artists' ability to market themselves in a capitalist space. The one with the best TikTok channel would get the money. That doesn't lead to having diverse, interesting, and challenging art.

[shwaj]

That’s not what they’re saying. Only the funding source would change; the funds would still be split evenly to anyone who meets the criteria of being an artist.

[ryanjshaw]

How does the government solve this problem? Why can’t a private organization replicate that? How was art produced previously without the existence of these programs?